I began graduate school in the late 1980s, and my goal was to understand how morality varied across cultures and nations. I did some research comparing moral judgment in India and the U.S.A.

Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second.

Our moral sense really evolved to bind groups together into teams that can cooperate in order to compete with other teams.

People who devote their lives to studying something often come to believe that the object of their fascination is the key to understanding everything.

I think sociologists are among the best at thinking about emergence, of thinking about the ways that the society is more than the sum of the individuals. And I've found that much of the wisest writing on human social nature comes from sociology and anthropology, not from my own field of social psychology.

The social intuitionist model offers an explanation of why moral and political arguments are so frustrating: because moral reasons are the tail wagged by the intuitive dog. A dog’s tail wags to communicate. You can’t make a dog happy by forcibly wagging its tail. And you can’t change people’s minds by utterly refuting their arguments.

science is a smorgasbord, and google will guide you to the study that's right for you.